SOCIAL: [Party_Car] DETAILS: 'Deep Slate November 2008: VOTE TUESDAY NOVEMBER 4TH

[Manish Champsee]

Also, I'm really amused that whenever I'm reading this thread, I get a Peter
Klivans for BART Board ad at the top.

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Manish Champsee <mchampsee at gmail.com>wrote:

> To pick on a whole separate measure...what about Prop 11.  The argument
> I've seen is that its unfair to Democrats, however, both Gray Davis and
> Steve Westly have endorsed it.
>
> As I see it, how can things get worse?  We have a polarizing legislature
> that ensures their own survival where we play the budget game of 2/3 to pass
> with no new taxes and all the other stuff that happens every year.  In a
> state that is as liberal as we are, I don't see any scenario where the
> Democrats get redistricted into a minority.  On the other hand, there is
> always the possibility that Democrats could get a 2/3 majority (or even some
> less extreme Republicans) so that we don't need to play the budget game.
>
> Manish
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Tom Radulovich <tomrad at well.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Eric Arons wrote:
>>
>> Thanks again Tom.  So when I was mentioning congestion relief, I wasn't at
>> all talking about building more highways to let more people drive.  But of
>> course, traffic congestion can't encourage alternative transit choices if
>> those choices aren't available.  That's more what I meant, that maybe money
>> would be better spent developing a first class regional transit system (like
>> they also have in major European cities) before we start building
>> inter-urban transit to connect LA to SF.  And electrification is already
>> being planned for Caltrain, right?  By 2014 or something?
>>
>>
>> The HSR bond will get us at least one element of a first class regional
>> transit system, by turning Caltrain into a regional metro. Without the HSR
>> bond, Caltrain could continue to get upgraded incrementally, as funding is
>> available. The Caltrain you see today is the result of about 20 years of
>> incremental improvements – not very impressive progress. Caltrain
>> electrification has always lacked a full funding commitment, so it keeps
>> getting pushed back. Without the HSR bond, I doubt it will get completed by
>> 2014, and the Downtown extension will take even longer.
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately it seems like budget constraints force us to be either-or
>> thinkers, at least as these ideas come up.  Of course we'd all love to have
>> everything, but choices are made.  Like you even say below, you'd rather
>> have HSR than BART to SJ.  So is it also a choice of possibly Caltrain
>> improvements with other major regional transit improvements vs. HSR?
>>
>> Not on this ballot; it's the HSR program, or nothing.
>>
>> Unfortunately, even advocates like TALC have bought into the zero-sum
>> transit game, arguing earlier this year that BART capital and capacity needs
>> shouldn't necessarily get funded in the Metropolitan Transportation
>> Commission's proposed Regional Transportation Plan. Livable City, SPUR, and
>> SFBC pointed out that MTC is proposing to spend $6 billion expanding highway
>> capacity over the next 30 years, in the Bay Area alone. TALC came around,
>> and we plan to pester the MTC commission when their next draft comes out in
>> December. There are billions more in proposed highway expansion in other
>> parts of the state. The Bay Area and California can cover the capacity and
>> reinvestment needs of current transit, expand regional transit, *and* build
>> HSR if we stop expanding highways. Presuming California's population will
>> continue to grow (not to say that population growth is a good idea, but it
>> seems rather inevitable for a few decades more) I think passing the HSR bond
>> gives us our best opportunity to make the case against further highway
>> expansion.
>>
>> So anyway, you say that it won't take away from other worthwhile transit
>> projects.  I guess that's the part I don't totally understand.  I mean,
>> suppose someone has ideas for bond measures in the future for...i
>> dunno...."general local transit improvements" or something like that (ok,
>> I'm making this up and revealing my ignorance).  Don't existing bond
>> issuances make it more difficult to issue future bonds?  Isn't that part of
>> the reason why our bond rating dropped already making it even more
>> difficult?  I'm just thinking we might not want to just take "whatever we
>> can get" just because it's available now.  I know that the perfect is the
>> enemy of the good, but I also think that the "something" can be the enemy of
>> the "something better" (that's terrible - maybe there should be a
>> competition for someone to come up with a better quote).
>>
>>
>> Funding for most state transportation programs comes from a state tax on
>> gasoline, and the sales tax on gasoline, which Proposition 42 dedicated to
>> the transportation trust fund. There are several ways that the Governor and
>> Legislature can borrow against or divert those funds, which they have done
>> in the last two years.
>>
>> General obligation bonds, like those proposed in Prop 1A and Prop 10 this
>> year, come out of the state general fund. In theory these bond repayment
>> obligations don't reduce the highway trust fund, but if the Legislature
>> can't agree to raise taxes, then there is a chance that general obligation
>> bond repayment liabilities could compel the legislature to divert funds from
>> transportation. This year's budget, deal took took funds from transit, but
>> kept highway funding intact, which is depressing, but also demonstrates what
>> the legislatures priorities are -- HSR is a 100% transit bond, which is the
>> most transit-focused bond measure ever put before voters by the legislature.
>>
>>  We did pass a big transportation bond, Prop 1A, a few years back, which
>> was a mix of good, bad, and ugly transportation projects. The problem with
>> these bonds is that they are grab-bags of the governor's and legislators'
>> pet projects, so they tend to be full of highway projects and big-ticket,
>> cost-ineffective rail and ferry projects. Prop 1A was just that, with, as I
>> recall, over $4 billion for highway expansion, dedicated funds towards a
>> list of specific rail and ferry projects, and a very useful chunk of capital
>> funding allocated directly to transit agencies, to be spent on what they
>> like. BART agreed to put most of our Prop 1A funding on stations, access,
>> and capacity (MTC strong-armed us into sinking $40 million into the Warm
>> Springs Extension). Muni put most of its Prop 1A money into the Central
>> Subway.
>>
>> Regional Measure 2, which increased the Bay Area's bridge tolls by $1 to
>> pay for a program of 'congestion relief' projects, was another legislative
>> smorgasbord; no funding for expanding the capacity of existing transit
>> (BART, Muni), but a large sum for Transbay Terminal reconstruction (which
>> will increase transbay transit capacity), some funding to support transit
>> operations and late-night service, and hundreds of millions for BART
>> extensions, wasteful ferry projects, and highway expansion that will likely
>> worsen congestion on existing transbay transit and bridges.
>>
>> One would think that $4 gas and climate change would get the state
>> legislature and MTC thinking that redirecting funds from highways to transit
>> expansion might be a good idea at this point, but I see no signs yet; the
>> logic of prior commitments trumps any other sort of logic. (something like
>> "We have already spent $20 million on engineering, so we might as well spend
>> $980 million to finish the project").
>>
>> The question I ask about bonds is: will our children and grandchildren
>> thank us for this? Will they say "Thanks for going into debt to add more
>> lanes to Interstate 580?" or "thanks for issuing 30-year bonds to pay
>> truckers $50 K a pop to buy new trucks, even though those trucks will no
>> longer be on the road by the time the bonds are repaid?" I think not. I
>> think they may say that High speed rail is a smart and foresighted
>> investment in statewide and regional mobility that will make even more sense
>> decades from now as oil and other resources are further depleted.
>>
>> For folks who care about sustainability, I think the strategy should be:
>> * We need HSR, ASAP; and
>> * we also need to redirect funding from highway expansion and wasteful
>> transit projects towards effective transit and creating walkable and
>> bikeable communities.
>>
>> Ok, maybe I'm just skeptical about Quentin Kopp.....
>>
>>
>> As you should be. He is more often wrong then right, but happens to be
>> right about HSR.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Social mailing list
>> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
>> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deeptrouble.com/pipermail/social-deeptrouble.com/attachments/20081022/809ec964/attachment-0002.htm>